EB-1ABiotech and pharmaIndividualDecided December 2019Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC192019_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A postdoctoral researcher in biomedical engineering working on gene therapy sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner's claimed original contributions in gene therapy delivery were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact, failing the threshold of three criteria.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Peer review work for journals established and credited by director.
- Scholarly articles · Authorship of scholarly articles established and credited by director.
What was missing
- Original contributions · Despite citations to work and licensing interest, research contributions in gene therapy not demonstrated as majorly significant in field or with measurable impact on field development.
- Final merits · Record does not demonstrate national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at top of biomedical engineering or gene therapy field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Peer review work for journals established and credited by director. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Authorship of scholarly articles established and credited by director. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Despite citations to work and licensing interest, research contributions in gene therapy not demonstrated as majorly significant in field or with measurable impact on field development. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not demonstrate national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at top of biomedical engineering or gene therapy field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.